• 0 Posts
  • 139 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle

  • I don’t think you know what a ponzi scheme is. A ponzi scheme is a situation where a business pays it’s previous investors with the money from it’s new investors… In a fairly launched crypto currency there is no business or other central entity distributing the coins so there is nothing to invest in and no one to pay you back. The only think you can “invest” in is the network itself and the only thing you can “invest” is the work of your computer to secure the network for which you will be rewarded with some coins. Every other good store of value in the world works the same. In order to obtain gold or silver you have to pointlessly dig in the ground searching for some useless metal whose only worth comes from it’s scarcity and being difficult to obtain. In that sense if crypto currencies are a ponzi scheme then so are silver, gold, diamonds, €/$/£ (paper or digital), stocks and everything else whose value doesn’t come from it’s intrinsic qualities.

    If you don’t want to dig in the ground/use your computers work you can pay someone else to do it or just buy the metal/coin from them if they already acquired it. But if it’s so useless why would anyone spend their time, effort or intrinsically valuable things (like food, fuel, tools etc.) to acquire it? Because while it’s basic qualities don’t make it a good source of energy, food, heat, light, shelter, security, comfort, entertainment… non of the things we as humans value, they do make it an ideal candidate for a store of value a unit of account and a medium of exchange. That’s why people valued this metals for millennia and continue to do so. They don’t have value on their own, but in the context of the societal system we live in their intrinsic qualities make them invaluable. The value of gold, cash etc. came from it’s place in that system, crypto currencies are in many aspects an improvement on those intrinsic qualities that make gold and cash valuable so it’s only natural that they will replace the aforementioned in many areas of life.







  • qwertytoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldAdopting a stray cat
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    22 days ago

    Yeah being homeless sucks, what does that have to do with cats reproducing?

    Even if we assume that all unplanned kittens end up homeless, it’s still some twisted version of financial cat eugenics. “Your life will probably not adhere to my standards of what a good life is, so I will prevent you from existing in the first place for your own good. I will cut off your balls because your kids would be homeless.”

    Now apply the same logic to humans. I know we are talking about cats but from a moral standpoint it should make no difference, the degree of “bad” might change, it’s less bad if you do that to an animal and more bad if you do that to a human, but in both cases it’s still bad. I can’t think of anything that this logic doesn’t apply to, even when it comes to something we do all the time like killing, if you do that to a human, that’s murder, which is obviously terrible and if yo do that to an animal, that’s acceptable, because we need it for food to survive but it’s still bad. If we could get meat any other way I don’t think anyone would be opposed to that.

    If you don’t want to get castrated by aliens\AI overlords then don’t do that to your pets.






  • The law… But seriously, it’s not meant to spy on you or me. It’s meant for 90% of the population who can’t install an .apk and don’t know the difference between a web browser and a search engine. They’ll just download facebook messenger from the play store if it doesn’t come already pre-installed with their phone and won’t even know that this law is a thing until they get arrested for sharing pictures of their sick kid with the family doctor or political dissent terrorism once it gets inevitably expanded to other things than csam.







  • qwertytoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlLemmy today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yes, my comment wasn’t about online casinos but about the people who think they have a right to tell others how to live their lives. I’m not defending the gambling industry, I think gambling is stupid. I’m defending the right of the people to make their own decisions.

    My “defense of the gambling industry” was just me pointing out that as long as something isn’t inherently nonconsensual and the terms and conditions are clear there is no reason to forbid other people from doing it just because you disagree with it.


  • qwertytoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlLemmy today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    There are ways to cryptographically verify bet integrity, but that’s not important. The point I was trying to make is that people should have the right to make their own decisions, even if you disagree with them, even if they’re objectively wrong.